June 07, 2016
It’s no surprise to litigators that some courts tend to be relaxed with the rules of evidence in civil cases. In many contexts, courts are prepared to admit inadmissible hearsay evidence and simply address evidentiary concerns by noting that such evidence may be given less weight. That type of approach was often taken in cases under section 8 of the Patented Medicine (Notice of Compliance) Regulations.
December 15, 2015
A recent Federal Court decision has given new meaning to the notion of criminalizing marijuana. The case of Trans-High Corporation v Hightimes Smokeshop and Gifts Inc (2015 FC 1104) is perhaps one of the first times marijuana related trade-mark infringement has landed someone in jail.
August 14, 2015
It is league table season. The various ratings agencies issue their lists of "best this" or "best that" in various categories, and simultaneously interview for next year's "best that" and "best this". The patent litigation lists remain strangely impervious to gender equality. I have been reflecting on why that should be.
June 03, 2015
In industrial design, it pays to have it all.
In a recent decision, the Federal Court of Appeal held that while a purely functional design does not attract protection (as per section 5.1(a) of the Industrial Design Act), an industrial design that has a functional aspect can still be enforced if the design is also visually appealing.
April 23, 2015
In a rare and surprising turn of events, a full panel of the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously dismissed Sanofi-Aventis' appeal of its "Section 8" liability at the conclusion of oral argument on April 20. (Sanofi-Aventis v. Apotex Inc., 2015 SCC 20
February 27, 2015
September 18, 2014
The British Columbia Supreme Court's decision in Low v. Pfizer Canada Inc., 2014 BCSC 1469
could radically change the legal landscape for patent law in Canada. Patent law has thus far been entirely statutory rather than a product of the common law; courts had not recognized any common law rights or remedies in relation to patents. The decision of Justice Smith changes that, and in so doing changes the risks innovators must consider.